linux-ext4.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Thavatchai Makphaibulchoke <thavatchai.makpahibulchoke@hp.com>
To: Andreas Dilger <adilger@dilger.ca>, George Spelvin <linux@horizon.com>
Cc: T Makphaibulchoke <tmac@hp.com>, Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>,
	Ext4 Developers List <linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/3] ext4: increase mbcache scalability
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 13:07:20 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <52E80DF8.7050602@hp.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <848E47EB-5FDF-4DB9-9800-4B1F4B1FA71C@dilger.ca>

On 01/28/2014 02:09 PM, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> On Jan 28, 2014, at 5:26 AM, George Spelvin <linux@horizon.com> wrote:
>>> The third part of the patch further increases the scalablity of an ext4
>>> filesystem by having each ext4 fielsystem allocate and use its own private
>>> mbcache structure, instead of sharing a single mcache structures across all
>>> ext4 filesystems, and increases the size of its mbcache hash tables.
>>
>> Are you sure this helps?  The idea behind having one large mbcache is
>> that one large hash table will always be at least as well balanced as
>> multiple separate tables, if the total size is the same.
>>
>> If you have two size 2^n hash tables, the chance of collision is equal to
>> one size  2^(n+1) table if they're equally busy, and if they're unequally
>> busy. the latter is better.  The busier file system will take less time
>> per search, and since it's searched more often than the less-busy one,
>> net win.
>>
>> How does it compare with just increasing the hash table size but leaving
>> them combined?
> 
> Except that having one mbcache per block device would avoid the need
> to store the e_bdev pointer in thousands/millions of entries.  Since
> the blocks are never shared between different block devices, there
> is no caching benefit even if the same block is on two block devices.
> 
> Cheers, Andreas
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

Thanks George and Andreas for the comments.  Andreas you mentions a good point, e_bdev pointer is not needed when having one mb_cache for each block device.  I'll integrate that into my patch, removing the e_bdev pointer, and run some comparison between one large hash table vs multiple hash tables, as suggested by George.

Thanks,
Mak.

  reply	other threads:[~2014-01-28 20:07 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2014-01-28 12:26 [PATCH v4 0/3] ext4: increase mbcache scalability George Spelvin
2014-01-28 21:09 ` Andreas Dilger
2014-01-28 20:07   ` Thavatchai Makphaibulchoke [this message]
2014-02-11 18:47   ` Thavatchai Makphaibulchoke
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2013-08-22 15:54 [PATCH v2 0/2] " T Makphaibulchoke
2014-01-24 18:31 ` [PATCH v4 0/3] " T Makphaibulchoke
2014-01-24 21:38   ` Andi Kleen
2014-01-25  1:13     ` Thavatchai Makphaibulchoke
2014-01-25  6:09     ` Andreas Dilger
2014-01-27 12:27       ` Thavatchai Makphaibulchoke
2014-02-09 19:46       ` Thavatchai Makphaibulchoke
2014-02-11 19:58       ` Thavatchai Makphaibulchoke
2014-02-13  2:01         ` Andreas Dilger

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=52E80DF8.7050602@hp.com \
    --to=thavatchai.makpahibulchoke@hp.com \
    --cc=adilger@dilger.ca \
    --cc=andi@firstfloor.org \
    --cc=linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux@horizon.com \
    --cc=tmac@hp.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).